"Moron" is what gets people killed more than anything, hence moron moments outnumbering drunk driving related crashes 2:1. At least you can usually spot someone whose gone full-retard at the bar and give 'em a wide berth. Little tricker when someone decides to jump a red out of the blue.

number8:DUI in and of itself should not be illegal. Well, let me clarify that. Driving recklessly while drunk should be severely punished. If you're driving recklessly, get pulled over, and you've been drinking? The book should be thrown at you. Your punishment should be far greater than the current DUI punishments.

But punishment for just blowing over the limit, e.g. at a DUI checkpoint, or when officers hide just outside of bar parking lots to pull people over? Fark that. That's the part of it that's revenue generation, and that's the part of it that's an easy excuse for cops to perform warrantless searches.

No...you're getting closer, though. You need a better definition of "driving recklessly" because that's already what happens. You get caught speeding, are pulled over and blow a .10, you get the book thrown at you now. But were you, in fact, driving recklessly because you were doing 5 mph over the limit?

What needs to happen is something like this: Traffic infraction = ticket. Traffic infraction and drunk = ticket and surrender your keys while the cop gets you a taxi ride home. No more of this "DUI because you were speeding or swerving" but we can't let them drive on home, either. No--you get a ticket, but you also can't drive home.

Now, if you get into an accident AND you were drunk? THEN we bring the pain. No "vehicular homicide" nonsense; knowingly get drunk and get into a car and kill someone, then it's going to be murder. Trash someone else's car or property because you were wasted, they can sue you for every dime and you will have no recourse, no more apologizing and saying you'll start going to AA or checking into rehab first thing in the morning. And if you get hurt or killed--too bad for you. You pay the whole bill out of your own pocket or estate.

If the goal is to keep drunks off the road for everyone else's safety, then this lets cops do just that--if you're speeding or weaving or whatever, they can stop you, cite you, and get you a ride home; but no more lurking in the bushes to fatten up the city coffers. And those dolts who think they are able to down a six-pack of Jack Daniels and then drive home--okay, fine. Their first bad accident will also be their last, because no more multiple DUIs for them. They'll either be dead or in jail like the felons they are.

Gyrfalcon:number8: DUI in and of itself should not be illegal. Well, let me clarify that. Driving recklessly while drunk should be severely punished. If you're driving recklessly, get pulled over, and you've been drinking? The book should be thrown at you. Your punishment should be far greater than the current DUI punishments.

But punishment for just blowing over the limit, e.g. at a DUI checkpoint, or when officers hide just outside of bar parking lots to pull people over? Fark that. That's the part of it that's revenue generation, and that's the part of it that's an easy excuse for cops to perform warrantless searches.

No...you're getting closer, though. You need a better definition of "driving recklessly" because that's already what happens. You get caught speeding, are pulled over and blow a .10, you get the book thrown at you now. But were you, in fact, driving recklessly because you were doing 5 mph over the limit?

What needs to happen is something like this: Traffic infraction = ticket. Traffic infraction and drunk = ticket and surrender your keys while the cop gets you a taxi ride home. No more of this "DUI because you were speeding or swerving" but we can't let them drive on home, either. No--you get a ticket, but you also can't drive home.

Now, if you get into an accident AND you were drunk? THEN we bring the pain. No "vehicular homicide" nonsense; knowingly get drunk and get into a car and kill someone, then it's going to be murder. Trash someone else's car or property because you were wasted, they can sue you for every dime and you will have no recourse, no more apologizing and saying you'll start going to AA or checking into rehab first thing in the morning. And if you get hurt or killed--too bad for you. You pay the whole bill out of your own pocket or estate.

If the goal is to keep drunks off the road for everyone else's safety, then this lets cops do just that--if you're speeding or weaving or whatever, they can stop you, cite you, and get you a ride home; but no more lurking in the bushes to fatten up the city coffers. And those dolts who think they are able to down a six-pack of Jack Daniels and then drive home--okay, fine. Their first bad accident will also be their last, because no more multiple DUIs for them. They'll either be dead or in jail like the felons they are.

Rev.K:My police friends would absolutely agree with tougher sentencing. I've heard their stories from court on drunk drivers beating charges and it is absolutely appalling.

here in Louisiana and especially south Louisiana you can be busted again and again and damn little happens. it's not at all unusual to read that joe smith, convicted of DUI 4 times killed mary bailly in a car accident. and of those 4 convictions the only time spent in jail was overnight when he was booked.

oh and he was driving on a revoked license with no insurance. and wasn't hurt in the accident.

it's disgusting. it's not ok, boys with be boys, victimless crime. until we get serious with the sentencing you can drop the limit to 0.01 and it won't make any difference to the hard core drinker who is causing most of the mayhem.

Joe Peanut:In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, there is a 0% rule. And daily random checkpoints around the city. Yes, it helped reduce drunk driving, but a lot of collateral damage as well. People have gone to jail and lost both their car and licenses for cleaning their mouth with Listerine.

And in Brazil, police are allowed to shoot at you for fleeing from them. Can we find something that's a little more comparable to the US?

Gyrfalcon:number8: DUI in and of itself should not be illegal. Well, let me clarify that. Driving recklessly while drunk should be severely punished. If you're driving recklessly, get pulled over, and you've been drinking? The book should be thrown at you. Your punishment should be far greater than the current DUI punishments.

But punishment for just blowing over the limit, e.g. at a DUI checkpoint, or when officers hide just outside of bar parking lots to pull people over? Fark that. That's the part of it that's revenue generation, and that's the part of it that's an easy excuse for cops to perform warrantless searches.

No...you're getting closer, though. You need a better definition of "driving recklessly" because that's already what happens. You get caught speeding, are pulled over and blow a .10, you get the book thrown at you now. But were you, in fact, driving recklessly because you were doing 5 mph over the limit?

What needs to happen is something like this: Traffic infraction = ticket. Traffic infraction and drunk = ticket and surrender your keys while the cop gets you a taxi ride home. No more of this "DUI because you were speeding or swerving" but we can't let them drive on home, either. No--you get a ticket, but you also can't drive home.

Now, if you get into an accident AND you were drunk? THEN we bring the pain. No "vehicular homicide" nonsense; knowingly get drunk and get into a car and kill someone, then it's going to be murder. Trash someone else's car or property because you were wasted, they can sue you for every dime and you will have no recourse, no more apologizing and saying you'll start going to AA or checking into rehab first thing in the morning. And if you get hurt or killed--too bad for you. You pay the whole bill out of your own pocket or estate.

If the goal is to keep drunks off the road for everyone else's safety, then this lets cops do just that--if you're speeding or weaving or whatever, they can stop you, cite you, and get you a ride home ...

Interesting POV, also anyone in Alabama should know that .04 is the real legal limit not .08. If you're involved in a wreck our something and you're .04 you can be charged. I was told this by a Judge in a money hungry little town of course all I did was make a left turn into a convenience store parking lot with my blinker on but there was a cop there that knew me and didn't like me. The judge reduced the sentence of this supposed DUI to reckless driving but hey I couldn't afford a lawyer and 400 bucks was cheap compared to a DUI.

Maybe most of those countries are taking into consideration the fact that they allow people to drink at a much younger age. Such as 16 to drink and 18 to buy alcohol. Age for getting a driving license is 17/18. Would you really want to give a typical 18 yr old a drivers license and the ability to legally be above .0 whatever?

There was a story on my local news (WBIR out of Knoxville) about a proposed law to lower the limit in this state from 0.08 to 0.05. They said that the U.S., Canada and Iraq are the only countries where the limit is 0.08. In much of Europe and Australia, it's 0.05. And that in Australia, after the limit was lowered from 0.08 to 0.05, all provinces reported an 18% drop of deaths from alcohol related crashes.

Ranger Rover:Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

What else do they ask?

Way back when I was there with my uncle we got stopped at a roadblock they asked if he had been drinking and he said one with dinner with was true. I was so sure we were all going to jail because we had smoking out prior to that. Happy ending though we didn't go to jail and got to his place safely and then smoked out some more. That was some of the best parts about being in LA.

tinfoil-hat maggie:Ranger Rover: Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

What else do they ask?

Way back when I was there with my uncle we got stopped at a roadblock they asked if he had been drinking and he said one with dinner with was true. I was so sure we were all going to jail because we had smoking out prior to that. Happy ending though we didn't go to jail and got to his place safely and then smoked out some more. That was some of the best parts about being in LA.

Because of the lax smoking laws? Interesting. I don't think we're too bad here in Missouri but we're definitely not California (and a walloping thank for God that, in that my opinion....)

I was curious about what other questions may be asked at these checkpoints. Asking if you've been drinking seems like a reasonable question, since that's the purpose of the checkpoint itself. Not that I support checkpoints in the first place; I firmly believe they violate the 4th Amendment and if I recall correctly, I think the Supreme Court itself, in one of its least defensible opinions, said as much and then proceeded to justify their continued existence with the old amorphous "public safety/legitimate state interest" bullsh--.

It seemed like Authentic Chop Suey may have been intimating some deeper privacy invasions in these questions. Situations like this create a real tough spot for people - invoking the 4th Amendment, asking if you're being detained and can leave, or not answering questions is likely to be abused by a cop and turned sketchily into PC or something like it. Which is a damn shame, because what do these rights even mean in that case? In Missouri, a refusal to blow leads to a presumption of guilt. So basically, exercising a right that the state agrees you have is punished swiftly and tangibly and shifts the rebuttable presumption of guilt, making that presumption effectively unrebuttable (yep, making that a word....irrebuttable?) for anyone who can't afford a good attorney.

Have you had experiences with more privacy-invading questions? I'm trying to think of what these could be while still remaining relevant to the purpose of the checkpoint....maybe asking about where you've been or where you're headed?

Ranger Rover:Have you had experiences with more privacy-invading questions? I'm trying to think of what these could be while still remaining relevant to the purpose of the checkpoint....maybe asking about where you've been or where you're headed?

Actually, that was the officers first question where were we and where are we going? And the first time I was stopped as a teen I was asked a similar question. maybe that's wrong but they do it all the time.

Ranger Rover:tinfoil-hat maggie: Ranger Rover: Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

What else do they ask?

Way back when I was there with my uncle we got stopped at a roadblock they asked if he had been drinking and he said one with dinner with was true. I was so sure we were all going to jail because we had smoking out prior to that. Happy ending though we didn't go to jail and got to his place safely and then smoked out some more. That was some of the best parts about being in LA.

Because of the lax smoking laws? Interesting. I don't think we're too bad here in Missouri but we're definitely not California (and a walloping thank for God that, in that my opinion....)

I was curious about what other questions may be asked at these checkpoints. Asking if you've been drinking seems like a reasonable question, since that's the purpose of the checkpoint itself. Not that I support checkpoints in the first place; I firmly believe they violate the 4th Amendment and if I recall correctly, I think the Supreme Court itself, in one of its least defensible opinions, said as much and then proceeded to justify their continued existence with the old amorphous "public safety/legitimate state interest" bullsh--.

It seemed like Authentic Chop Suey may have been intimating some deeper privacy invasions in these questions. Situations like this create a real tough spot for people - invoking the 4th Amendment, asking if you're being detained and can leave, or not answering questions is likely to be abused by a cop and turned sketchily into PC or something like it. Which is a damn shame, because what do these rights even mean in that case? In Missouri, a refusal to blow leads to a presumption of guilt. So basically, exercising a right that the state agrees you have is punished swiftly and tangibly and shifts the rebuttable presumption of guilt, making that presumption effectively unrebuttable (yep, making that a word....irrebuttable?) fo ...

Well, that was back in the 90's when I was in LA, but my uncle did have some Hawaiian shiat that blow me away. Away way yea cops overreach all the tome and well most people can.t afford a lawyer to fix it, Try talking to a judge yourself it makes you wanna ase some corts should be hel in contempt.

tinfoil-hat maggie:Ranger Rover: tinfoil-hat maggie: Ranger Rover: Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

What else do they ask?

Way back when I was there with my uncle we got stopped at a roadblock they asked if he had been drinking and he said one with dinner with was true. I was so sure we were all going to jail because we had smoking out prior to that. Happy ending though we didn't go to jail and got to his place safely and then smoked out some more. That was some of the best parts about being in LA.

Because of the lax smoking laws? Interesting. I don't think we're too bad here in Missouri but we're definitely not California (and a walloping thank for God that, in that my opinion....)

I was curious about what other questions may be asked at these checkpoints. Asking if you've been drinking seems like a reasonable question, since that's the purpose of the checkpoint itself. Not that I support checkpoints in the first place; I firmly believe they violate the 4th Amendment and if I recall correctly, I think the Supreme Court itself, in one of its least defensible opinions, said as much and then proceeded to justify their continued existence with the old amorphous "public safety/legitimate state interest" bullsh--.

It seemed like Authentic Chop Suey may have been intimating some deeper privacy invasions in these questions. Situations like this create a real tough spot for people - invoking the 4th Amendment, asking if you're being detained and can leave, or not answering questions is likely to be abused by a cop and turned sketchily into PC or something like it. Which is a damn shame, because what do these rights even mean in that case? In Missouri, a refusal to blow leads to a presumption of guilt. So basically, exercising a right that the state agrees you have is punished swiftly and tangibly and shifts the rebuttable presumption of guilt, making that presumption effectively unrebuttable (yep, making that a word....irr ...

I see I'm too drunk to be posting, although that is sorta par for the course for me.

Drunk driving deaths have declined in part for the same reason gun homicides have gone down: Fewer people die from injuries that would have killed them even 40 years ago.

That's actually not true: Violent crime of all kinds has gone down in the same proportion as homicide:

If the reason that homicide was down by half was due to better medical care, then you would expect that the violent crime rate would have been steady. Clearly, the drop in homicide from the early 1990's to today is mirrored by the drop in aggravated assaults, robberies, etc., which strongly suggests it's not advanced medical care (which is irrelevant to the rates of rape, robbery, agg. assault, etc.).

In fact, non-fatal firearms crimes have also dropped:

So I just don't buy the whole "Homicide rate has dropped in half because doctors are better at treating bullet wounds".

It's undoubtedly true that medical science today is better than it was in 1991, and I'm sure that there is some minor improvement due to that, but it's swamped by the drop in overall violent crime which is the largest factor in why homicides have dropped.

Drunk driving deaths have declined in part for the same reason gun homicides have gone down: Fewer people die from injuries that would have killed them even 40 years ago.

That's actually not true: Violent crime of all kinds has gone down in the same proportion as homicide:

[static.cdn-seekingalpha.com image 456x340]

[marcisischo.com image 640x464]

If the reason that homicide was down by half was due to better medical care, then you would expect that the violent crime rate would have been steady. Clearly, the drop in homicide from the early 1990's to today is mirrored by the drop in aggravated assaults, robberies, etc., which strongly suggests it's not advanced medical care (which is irrelevant to the rates of rape, robbery, agg. assault, etc.).

In fact, non-fatal firearms crimes have also dropped:

[www.pewsocialtrends.org image 411x400]

So I just don't buy the whole "Homicide rate has dropped in half because doctors are better at treating bullet wounds".

It's undoubtedly true that medical science today is better than it was in 1991, and I'm sure that there is some minor improvement due to that, but it's swamped by the drop in overall violent crime which is the largest factor in why homicides have dropped.

12349876:TheTurtle: brap: I take umbrage at the headline, I may be sauced out of my gourd, but I'm never too drunk to hail a cab.

Thing is, where a pretty large number of people live, there ARE no cabs. There are no buses. No trains. No anything, except private automobiles, because that's pretty much how this country developed. In Europe, where limits are often stricter, things are (a) closer together and (b) served by much better public transport.

The ONLY place you can get a cab without calling ahead in my city is the airport.

I grew up in the middle of nowhere and am familiar with the concept of not being in a metropolitan area. That's why when I'm in the boonies and drinking my face of I call ahead. It's not rocket science, and thankfully I have lived to pass this *hic* wisdom on.

It is called revenue enhancement period. The safety of human beings? What a laugh. Have a late night? You will blow 0.05 the next morning. Get a dorky looking car. Drive like your grandmother, and never park anywhere near the bar you are going to. Avoid main thoroughfares if possible.

These strictures are killing restaurants, and pubs.

I once got pulled over in Walla Walla Washington. It was the 4th of July, just getting dark. I had been driving all day. "Have you been drinking?" No, sir. "I smell something." Yes? "Get out of the car, please."

The cop asked me to do those stupid dog tricks on the roadside. I just said breathalize me. "I haven't had a drop of alcohol in several days. My wife and I are on a road trip, looking for a place to eat and sleep." I blew 0.00.

The cop actually apologized and told me that his nose had never failed him before. Then he told how to get to the local Appleby's, adding, "That's where I take my wife on special occaisions."

Farxist Marxist:Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The level ideally should be 0.00,

No, it shouldn't. If ample scientific study and current law says that I can have a glass of wine with my meal - actually two for my body weight, and I am quite able to drive safely, than why shouldn't I?

Because I can have six. Or is it five? But four were Budweisers and one was a La Fin Du Monde with 9% alcohol. So is that five or six? How does a shot affect it?

It's easier having a black and white rule: if you drink, you don't drive. Period. Have a limit of 0.02% to catch the Listerine cases. The very fact that statewide campaigns exist against "buzzed driving" show that this isn't some simplistic case of having a glass of wine with dinner.

ZeroPly:Farxist Marxist: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The level ideally should be 0.00,

No, it shouldn't. If ample scientific study and current law says that I can have a glass of wine with my meal - actually two for my body weight, and I am quite able to drive safely, than why shouldn't I?

Because I can have six. Or is it five? But four were Budweisers and one was a La Fin Du Monde with 9% alcohol. So is that five or six? How does a shot affect it?

It's easier having a black and white rule: if you drink, you don't drive. Period. Have a limit of 0.02% to catch the Listerine cases. The very fact that statewide campaigns exist against "buzzed driving" show that this isn't some simplistic case of having a glass of wine with dinner.

That's a silly rebuttal. My point was that in a free, progressive society I have the ability to make choices and live with the consequences. The ability to have a glass or two of wine with a meal and drive safely home is a choice I should be able to make as a mature adult. My point was exactly a simplistic case of having a glass of wine with dinner, something I believe I should be able to do. If you, on the other hand, pound back five or six beers because you can, and then drive, you're doing so in the knowledge that you're breaking the law, and you shouldn't be permitted to drive. Ditto with those driving buzzed: they clearly didn't just have a glass of wine with dinner. Notwithstanding all this, if someone drinks a lot of alcohol, and drives knowing full-well they are over .08, what would dropping the limit back to .05 or even 0 accomplish?

The ability to make rational choices is what comes with being a mature, intelligent, well-informed adult. Restrictive laws shouldn't be passed because "it's easier that way". You're advocating control over an entire population, the majority of which don't require the government to supervise their personal lives. Similarly, it would be easier to wipe out the second amendment with a stroke of a pen, or ban junk foods because they're unhealthy, but that is unlikely to be allowed to happen.